No. L-71977. February 27,1987.* 1. "A.

SECTION 44 OF THE 'BUDGET REFORM DECREE OF 1977'

DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA, M.P., AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, M.P., ORLANDO S. INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW BY AUTHORIZING THE
MERCADO, M.P., HONORATO Y. AQUINO, M.P., ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, M.P., ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF PUBLIC MONEYS.
DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, M.P., OSCAR F. SANTOS, M.P., ALBERTO G. ROMULO, 2. "B.SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 IS REPUGNANT
M.P., CIRIACO R. ALFELOR, M.P., ISIDORO E. REAL, M.P., EMIGDIO L. LINGAD, TO THE CONSTITUTION AS IT FAILS TO SPECIFY THE OBJECTIVES
M.P., ROLANDO C. MARCIAL, M.P., PEDRO M. MARCELLANA, M.P., VICTOR S. AND PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF FUNDS
ZIGA, M.P., and ROGELIO V. GARCIA, M.P., petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL ALBA ARE TO BE MADE.
in his capacity as the MINISTER OF THE BUDGET and VICTOR MACALINGCAG in 3. "C.SECTION 44 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1177 ALLOWS THE
his capacity as the TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. PRESIDENT TO OVERRIDE THE SAFEGUARDS, FORM AND
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN APPROVING
Constitutional Law; The Court may pass upon constitutionality of Presidential APPROPRIATIONS.
Decree No. 1177, otherwise known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977".—
Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its 1. "D.SECTION 44 OF THE SAME DECREE AMOUNTS TO AN UNDUE
authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE EXECUTIVE.
the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it 2. "E.THE THREATENED AND CONTINUING TRANSFER OF FUNDS BY
becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the THE PRESIDENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF BY THE
government had assumed to do, as void. This is the essence of judicial power BUDGET MINISTER AND THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE
conferred by the Constitution "In one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND
be established by law" [Art. VIII, Section I of the 1935 Constitution; Art. X, Section 1 of JURISDICTION."2
the 1973 Constitution and which was adopted as part of the Freedom Constitution,
and Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution] and which power this Court has Commenting on the petition in compliance with the Court resolution dated September
exercised in many instances. 19,1985, the Solicitor General, for the public respondents, questioned the legal
Same; Same; Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 being repugnant to standing of petitioners, who were allegedly merely begging an advisory opinion from
Section 16(5) Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution declared null and void.—Paragraph the Court, there being no justiciable controversy fit for resolution or determination. He
1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over-extends the privilege granted under said further contended that the provision under consideration was enacted pursuant to
Section 16[5], It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution; and that at any rate, prohibition will
department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any program, not lie from one branch of the government to a coordinate branch to enjoin the
project or activity of any department, bureau or office included in the General performance of duties within the latter's sphere of responsibility.
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without regard as to whether or On February 27,1986, the Court required the petitioners to file a Reply to the
not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same Comment. This, they did, stating, among others, that as a result of the change in the
are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the administration, there is a need to hold the resolution of the present case in abeyance
item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only completely disregard the "until developments arise to enable the parties to concretize their respective stands." 3
standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of Thereafter, We required public respondents to file a rejoinder, The Solicitor
legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof. Indeed, such General filed a rejoinder with a motion to dismiss, setting forth as grounds therefor the
constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void. abrogation of Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom
Constitution of March 25, 1986, which has allegedly rendered the instant petition
PETITION for prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the constitutionality of moot and academic. He likewise cited the "seven pillars" enunciated by Justice
first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177. Brandeis in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)4 as basis for the petition's
dismissal.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. In the case of Evelio B. Javier v. The Commission on Elections and Arturo F.
Pacificador, G.R. Nos. 68379-81, September 22,1986, We stated that:
FERNAN, J.: "The abolition of the Batasang Pambansa and the disappearance of the office in
dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents—both of whom have gone
Assailed in this petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction is their separate ways—could be a convenient justification for dismissing the case. But
the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. there are larger issues involved that must be resolved now, once and for all, not only
1177, otherwise known as the "Budget Reform Decree of 1977." to dispel the legal ambiguities here raised. The more important purpose is to manifest
Petitioners, who filed the instant petition as concerned citizens of this country, as in the clearest possible terms that this Court will not disregard and in effect condone
members of the National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa representing their millions of wrong on the simplistic and tolerant pretext that the case has become moot and
constituents, as parties with general interest common to all the people of the academic.
Philippines, and as taxpayers whose vital interests may be affected by the outcome of 'The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the
the reliefs prayed for"1 listed the grounds relied upon in this petition as follows: conscience of the government. The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must
also give him justice. The two are not always the same. There are times when we branches of the government and those of the constitutional commissions
cannot grant the latter because the issue has been settled and decision is no longer considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources, the constitution
possible according to the law. But there are also times when although the dispute has allowed the enactment of a law authorizing the transfer of funds for the purpose of
disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice augmenting an item from savings in another item in the appropriation of the
demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though government branch or constitutional body concerned. The leeway granted was thus
gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future." limited. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were
It is in the discharge of our role in society, as above-quoted, as well as to avoid great specified, i.e. transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item and
disservice to national interest that We take cognizance of this petition and thus deny such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the
public respondents' motion to dismiss. Likewise noteworthy is the fact that the new appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body.
Constitution, ratified by the Filipino people in the plebiscite held on February 2, 1987, Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly overextends the privilege
carries verbatim section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution under Section granted under said Section 16[5]. It empowers the President to indiscriminately
24[5], Article VI. And while Congress has not officially reconvened, We see no cogent transfer funds from one department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive
reason for further delaying the resolution of the case at bar. Department to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau or office
The exception taken to petitioners' legal standing deserves scant consideration. included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without
The case of Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, et. al., 110 Phil. 331, is authority in regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item
support of petitioners' locus standi. Thus: from which the same are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose
"Again, it is well-settled that the validity of a statute may be contested only by one of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only
who will sustain a direct injury in consequence of its enforcement. Yet, there are completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to
many decisions nullifying at the instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
disbursement of public funds, upon the theory that 'the expenditure of public funds by Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.
an officer of the state for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional "For the love of money is the root of all evil: x x x" and money belonging to no one
act constitutes a misapplication of such funds which may be enjoined at the request in particular, i.e. public funds, provide an even greater temptation for misappropriation
of a taxpayer. Although there are some decisions to the contrary, the prevailing view and embezzlement. This, evidently, was foremost in the minds of the framers of the
in the United States is stated in the American Jurisprudence as follows: constitution in meticulously prescribing the rules regarding the appropriation and
'ln the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing disposition of public funds as embodied in Sections 16 and 18 of Article VIII of the
to attack the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons 1973 Constitution. Hence, the conditions on the release of money from the treasury
individually affected, but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the [Sec. 18(1)]; the restrictions on the use of public funds for public purpose [Sec. 18(2)];
illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the the prohibition to transfer an appropriation for an item to another [Sec. 16(5) and the
constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. [11 Am. Jur. 761, requirement of specifications [Sec. 16(2)], among others, were all safeguards
Italics supplied.]' " designed to forestall abuses in the expenditure of public funds. Paragraph 1 of
Section 44 puts all these safeguards to naught. For, as correctly observed by
Moreover, in Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677 and Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA petitioners, in view of the unlimited authority bestowed upon the President, "x x x
333, We said that as regards taxpayers' suits, this Court enjoys that open discretion Pres. Decree No. 1177 opens the floodgates for the enactment of unfunded
to entertain the same or not. appropriations, results in uncontrolled executive expenditures, diffuses accountability
The conflict between paragraph 1 of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 for budgetary performance and entrenches the pork barrel system as the ruling party
and Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution is readily perceivable from a may well expand [sic] public money not on the basis of development priorities but on
mere cursory reading thereof. Said paragraph 1 of Section 44 provides: political and personal expediency."5 The contention of public respondents that
"The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the paragraph 1 of Section 44 of P.D. 1177 was enacted pursuant to Section 16(5) of
different departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the Executive Department, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution must perf orce fall flat on its face.
which are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program, project or Another theory advanced by public respondents is that prohibition will not lie from
activity of any department, bureau, or office included in the General Appropriations one branch of the government against a coordinate branch to enjoin the performance
Act or approved after its enactment." of duties within the latter's sphere of responsibility.
Thomas M. Cooley in his "A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations," Vol. I,
On the other hand, the constitutional provision under consideration reads as follows: Eight Edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, explained:
"Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, "x x x The legislative and judicial are coordinate departments of the government, of
however, the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the equal dignity; each is alike supreme in the exercise of its proper functions, and cannot
Supreme Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions may by law be directly or indirectly, while acting within the limits of its authority, be subjected to the
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective control or supervision of the other, without an unwarrantable assumption by that other
offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations." of power which, by the Constitution, is not conferred upon it. The Constitution
apportions the powers of government, but it does not make any one of the three
The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit and departments subordinate to another, when exercising the trust committed to it. The
categorical under the 1973 Constitution. However, to afford the heads of the different courts may declare legislative enactments unconstitutional and void in some cases,
but not because the judicial power is superior in degree or dignity to the legislative. just compensation and without due process of law. (Nawasa vs. Catolico, 19 SCRA
Being required to declare what the law is in the cases which come before them, they 980.)
must enforce the Constitution, as the paramount law, whenever a legislative For the purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of the nullity of a statute passed
enactment comes in conflict with it. But the courts sit, not to review or revise the by Congress, it is enough if the respondents or defendants named be the government
legislative action, but to enforce the legislative will, and it is only where they find that officials who would give operation and effect to official action allegedly tainted with
the legislature has failed to keep within its constitutional limits, that they are at liberty unconstitutionality. (J.M. Tuazon and Company, Inc. vs. Land Tenure
to disregard its action; and in doing so, they only do what every private citizen may do Administration, 31 SCRA 413.)
in respect to the mandates of the courts when the judges assume to act and to render
judgments or decrees without jurisdiction. 'ln exercising this high authority, the judges ——o0o——
claim no judicial supremacy; they are only the administrators of the public will. If an
act of the legislature is held void, it is not because the judges have any control over
the legislative power, but because the act is forbidden by the Constitution, and
because the will of the people, which is therein declared, is paramount to that of their
representatives expressed in any law.' [Lindsay v. Commissioners, & c., 2 Bay, 38,
61; People v. Rucker, 5 Col. 5; Russ v. Com., 210 Pa. St. 544; 60 Atl. 169, 1 L.R.A.
[N.S.] 409,105 Am. St. Rep. 825]" (pp. 332-334).

Indeed, where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its
authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where
the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it
becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the
government had assumed to do as void. This is the essence of judicial power
conferred by the Constitution "in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law" [Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution; Art. X, Section 1
of the 1973 Constitution and which was adopted as part of the Freedom Constitution,
and Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution] and which power this Court has
exercised in many instances.**
Public respondents are being enjoined from acting under a provision of law which
We have earlier mentioned to be constitutionally infirm. The general principle relied
upon cannot therefore accord them the protection sought as they are not acting within
their "sphere of responsibility" but without it.
The nation has not recovered from the shock, and worst, the economic destitution
brought about by the plundering of the Treasury by the deposed dictator and his
cohorts. A provision which allows even the slightest possibility of a repetition of this
sad experience cannot remain written in our statute books.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is granted. Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of
Presidential Decree No. 1177 is hereby declared null and void f or being
unconstitutional.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
Notes.—The constitutional or unconstitutionality of legislation depends upon no
other facts than those existing at the time of the enactment thereof, unaffected by the
acts or omissions of law enforcement agencies, particularly those that take place
subsequently to the passage or approval of the law. (Gonzales vs. Commission on
Elections,21 SCRA 774.)
Republic Act No. 1383 insofar as it makes the National Waterworks and
Sewerage Authority, the owner of all local waterworks systems in the Philippines, is
unconstitutional upon the ground that it constitutes a taking of private property without